Tag Archives: Robert Mueller

media news

Conversation (continued) …

I’ve told you already about a fellow I met the other morning. We covered a lot of ground in the 10 or 12 minutes we chatted.

It centered mostly on the congressional hearing involving FBI agent Peter Strzok and his role in the Robert Mueller investigation into the “Russia thing.”

He mentioned he has been retired for 20 years. Then he asked me if I was retired. “Yes,” I said. “I’m a retired journalist. I was a member of the ‘Mainstream Media,'” I added.

He nodded. “Ahhh, that explains why you’re a liberal,” he said.

I stopped him. “No, sir. My job didn’t define me. My inherent bias is what informs my world view,” I told him.

He had described himself as a “libertarian,” who wasn’t aligned with Democrats or Republicans.

It dawned on me a long time ago, but his assumption that my more progressive/liberal tendencies are a result of my occupation drives home a key point.

Conservatives are winning the war of ideologies. They have succeeded in tarring media representatives and outlets as inherently “liberal.” The “liberal media” get blamed for all that is wrong with journalism.

My own view of the term “mainstream media,” though takes a different approach. I long have considered the “mainstream media” to be a much more diverse bunch than the way conservatives label them. I include many conservative-leaning outlets among members of the “mainstream media”: Fox News, The Weekly Standard, The National Review all belong to the MSM; I also might throw in Breitbart News just to get folks’ pulse to race a bit.

Indeed, I worked for three newspaper groups with ownership that was decidedly not liberal in its outlook. Scripps League Newspapers was run by an elderly scion from the E.W. Scripps newspaper empire; then I went to work for the Hearst Corp., another right-leaning outfit; my career ended while working for Morris Communications, which was a far-right-leaning organization led by a man who is the product of the “old South,” if you get my drift.

The media are as diverse as any other craft.

The gentleman with whom I had this exchange over the weekend likely didn’t intend to paint us all with such a broad brush … but he did.

I don’t yet know if I’ll see him again. If I do, I might take the time to inform him of my own view of what comprises the “mainstream media.”

I suppose I could ask him: If the “liberal mainstream media” are so powerful and pervasive, how do all those conservatives keep getting elected to public office?

national news

One more time: stop blaming Barack Obama

Donald J. Trump is trying to deflect attention from the glaring light of accountability.

He’s been firing off messages via Twitter that say that the Russian meddling in the 2016 election is President Barack H. Obama’s fault. Such as this:

These Russian individuals did their work during the Obama years. Why didn’t Obama do something about it? Because he thought Crooked Hillary Clinton would win, that’s why. Had nothing to do with the Trump Administration, but Fake News doesn’t want to report the truth, as usual!

He is right that it had “nothing to do with the Trump Administration.” It had everything to do with the Trump campaign.

That’s the point, Mr. President. Robert Mueller has obtained the indictments of 12 Russian military goons who conspired to influence the 2016 election outcome. Whether the previous administration did enough, if anything, to stop it is totally beside the point.

If the goons did what the indictments allege, then it’s on them.

The next big answer will determine whether the Trump campaign helped them in any way.

Right there is the total relevance of these indictments. None of this has a damn thing to do with the Obama administration.

national news, political news

Another clumsy diversion from POTUS

I believe they call it “projection,” where someone seeks to project blame on to someone else.

Check out this tweet from Donald J. Trump regarding the Department of Justice indictment against 12 Russians on charges they conspired to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

The stories you heard about the 12 Russians yesterday took place during the Obama Administration, not the Trump Administration. Why didn’t they do something about it, especially when it was reported that President Obama was informed by the FBI in September, before the Election?

What is the president trying to do here? I think I’ve got it.

He is trying to say that the Obama administration should have stopped the attack on our electoral system and that because the president didn’t act immediately, that it’s not the Trump campaign’s fault that the Russians interfered in our election.

Sorry, Mr. President. That doesn’t cut it.

The Trump campaign should have blown the whistle on the Russians in real time, the moment they came to whomever in the campaign with some dirty goods on Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Trumpsters didn’t act, either. Therefore, it’s on them.

The Trump campaign’s failure to act has led us to the appointment of a special counsel — Robert Mueller — who is seeking to slog his way through the thicket of evidence to determine whether there was collusion with the Russians.

Meanwhile, the president needs to stop trying to lay blame at the feet of others.

national news

Nothing ‘clear’ about collusion

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel is getting wa-a-a-a-y ahead of herself.

The RNC statement on the Justice Department indictments of 12 Russian military intelligence officers does make clear that the Russians meddled in our 2016 presidential election.

The RNC has joined a growing chorus of other intelligence and political officials who have acknowledged the obvious. Donald Trump, though, remains an increasingly lonely holdout.

However, McDaniel’s statement asserts that “it remains clear there was no collusion” between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Hold on, Mme. Chairwoman. We do not know that … yet.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is continuing his work toward determining whether there was collusion. The president keeps asserting there was “no collusion.” That’s fine. Let him squawk all he wants.

It’s Mueller and his team, though, that will make the official determination about possible collusion. Or about possible obstruction of justice. Or about possible campaign finance violations. Or about possibly anything else that they might deem relevant to the conduct of the president and his campaign.

As for the RNC climbing aboard the Trump bandwagon/clown-car train, let’s settle down and await the outcome of this investigation.

national news

‘Witch hunt’ keeps reeling ’em in

The U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictments of 12 Russian military intelligence officials, accusing them of conspiring to meddle in our electoral system.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said he briefed the president “fully” on the grand jury indictment.

So, what does Donald John Trump do? He tells the world yet again today that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling is a “rigged witch hunt.”

Mr. President, this is the farthest thing possible from a “witch hunt.”

It has produced indictments and confessions of wrongdoing; key Trump administration aides are now cooperating with the Mueller legal team. There has been tangible, demonstrable evidence that Russians have attacked the heart of our democratic system of government.

And the president keeps calling it a “witch hunt.”

Outrageous.

national news, political news

It’s the timing, man!

What are we to make of the timing of two key events in the 2016 presidential campaign?

Donald J. Trump in July of that year invited the Russian government to find the missing 30,000 e-mails that Hillary Rodham Clinton deleted from her file at the U.S. State Department.

Here is the GOP nominee making that invitation:

Then … according to an indictment handed down against 12 Russian military intelligence officers, on that very day they began hacking into the Democratic nominee’s files.

Coincidence? I think not. Neither does the legal team headed by special counsel Robert Mueller or the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to the special counsel post.

I have believed since the beginning of this probe that Mueller’s so-called “witch hunt” is nothing of the sort.

Uncategorized

So … what about cyber security?

Those nagging, knotty questions about cyber security keep recurring.

Robert Mueller’s legal team has indicted 12 Russian goons for conspiring to meddle in our 2016 election. Vladimir Putin, the Russian strongman, likely ordered it. Our intelligence brass has concurred, as has the intelligence arms of our major allies.

Donald Trump hasn’t yet acknowledged the existential threat to our electoral system. What’s more, the Russians likely are seeking to screw up our 2018 midterm elections, too.

Back to a question I have posed before: Where is our cyber security reform?

About a decade ago, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, gave my former congressman, Mac Thornberry, a Clarendon Republican, the task of developing a way to protect our nation’s cyber network.

Thornberry’s all-GOP task force issued a detailed report. Then they were done. They all went back to doing whatever it is they do.

As the nation wrings its hands over cyber security and wonders how it is going to protect its secrets from foreign foes — such as Russia — I haven’t heard a sound from Rep. Thornberry!

Speaker Boehner spoke quite highly of Thornberry’s skill in leading this reform effort, if my memory serves me. Yes, Thornberry is a smart fellow.

But what in the world are we doing to deter the kind of manipulation and possibly decisive meddling that occurred in 2016? Have there been improvements to our cyber network to prevent future interference?

The fellow who used to represent me in the U.S. House of Representatives presumably led the effort to make us safer against such meddling. Didn’t he?

International news, national news, political news

How will we know what comes from this meeting?

Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Helsinki, Finland.

Trump says he’ll bring up the Russian meddling in our 2016 election. Now the question: What will Putin say in response?

How about the bigger question: How in the name of bilateral diplomacy are we ever going to know what Putin says?

The two men are going to meet one on one. No senior aides will be present. Only the presidents’ interpreters will be in the room.

Trump is a liar. Putin is a liar; Putin also is a killer, which gives me pause about the future of the interpreter Putin is bringing into the room with him. The Russian interpreter had better do his job correctly … if you get my drift.

Putin will deny meddling in the election. Trump will have the combined assessment of every intelligence agency at his command that has determined the Russians did attack our electoral system. Is the president going to throw that assessment back at his Kremlin colleague?

Oh, and now we have the indictments of 12 Russian intelligence officials. Robert Mueller has indicted them for their role in interfering in our election. This is a big one, folks. But do you know what? It could get even bigger!

How? Mueller well might be preparing to indict the Americans who were complicit in what the Russians allegedly did.

But … the U.S. president will meet with the Russian president. The proverbial elephant in the room will be the meddling matter. If only we could trust our president to tell us the truth about what he discusses with his Russian counterpart. Vladimir Putin most certainly isn’t to be trusted.

I fear about the certain lack of trust in our president, as well.

national news

East Texan gives lunacy a bad name

1 Comment

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert outdid himself today.

The East Texas member of Congress decided to do something few members of Congress have done. He accused a witness before a committee who had taken an oath to tell the truth of being a liar. The witness was Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who the House Operations Committee grilled for hours over his role in the Robert Mueller investigation into the Donald Trump presidential campaign.

Gohmert, a Republican, violated a rule of the House. Members are not allowed to question the veracity of witnesses who swear an oath to tell the truth. He did so anyway. To his great shame.

Oh, but he wasn’t done.

Gohmert then decided to wonder whether Strzok was truthful when he looked his wife in the eye while denying an affair he was having with another FBI agent. That line of questioning brought out howls of protest from Democrats on the committee.

Gohmert’s behavior today stood out in a hearing that was full of disgraceful utterances.

That is really saying something. And none of it is good.

Louie Gohmert is a disgrace to his office.

national news

Not a good day for our government system

I guess you can look at what many of us saw today through two prisms.

The congressional hearing that subjected FBI agent Peter Strzok to intense questioning was either:

  • A demonstration of the free-wheeling aspect of a representative democracy, or …
  • An exhibition of extreme partisanship, lowlighted by Republicans’ continual attempts to disrupt and throw the witness off his game.

Strzok was grilled for most of the day over emails he wrote that GOP House members say revealed an anti-Trump bias while he worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that’s investigating the president’s 2016 election campaign.

He stood his ground. He denied any bias. He said his conscience is clear. The back and forth was remarkable in the anger it generated from Republicans who contended Strzok wasn’t answering their questions and from Democrats who objected to the constant hectoring of the witness.

I have two favorite spectacles from the hearing.

One was Freedom Caucus founder Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio — who’s been accused by athletes at Ohio State University of looking the other way when sexual abuse was occurring. Jordan kept interrupting Strzok, preventing him from answering the questions he was posing. Then Jordan would argue with a shrill voice that the agent was not answering his questions.

My other favorite moment involved the East Texas GOP loony bird, Rep. Louis Gohmert, who wondered whether Strzok was able to look into his wife’s eyes as he “lied” about his sexual relationship with another FBI page that Mueller fired from his legal team.

Gohmert the Goober could not have possibly sunk any lower with that kind of tawdry question. It drew howls of outrage from Democratic committee members.

All in all, this was not a good day for the cause of good government in America. We witnessed a clown show that should have ended hours ago.